HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Possible rule or rules to minimize the trap or possibly eliminate it.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2011, 12:38 PM
  #26
OkimLom
Registered User
 
OkimLom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
If you're making new rules, they most likely are gonna be "judgement calls". Which judging by other fans would create more anger.

I have an idea that I think would open up the trap. Use the Defensive blueline as the icing line. The trap makes teams try to get to the red line. Which leads to players try and make stretch passes which to seem not to work a lot and forces icing and slows down the game. If you move the icing line to the blue line, you would see more openness in the neutral zone as it would allow a team to dump it in earlier and the trap would be engaged. This also would allow a race to the puck potentially quicker and in turn lead to more scoring chances(a defenseman might try to pinch and would allow the forechecker to get a step on them and would lead to possibly a more opened up game).

I then would implement a rule that states there is Automatic icingicing on penalty kills and no line changes on offending team(be it offense or Defense) since it is easier to get it out of the zone and therefore quicker to make line changes.

My thought only.

OkimLom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 12:40 PM
  #27
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OkimLom View Post
If you're making new rules, they most likely are gonna be "judgement calls". Which judging by other fans would create more anger.

I have an idea that I think would open up the trap. Use the Defensive blueline as the icing line. The trap makes teams try to get to the red line. Which leads to players try and make stretch passes which to seem not to work a lot and forces icing and slows down the game. If you move the icing line to the blue line, you would see more openness in the neutral zone as it would allow a team to dump it in earlier and the trap would be engaged. This also would allow a race to the puck potentially quicker and in turn lead to more scoring chances(a defenseman might try to pinch and would allow the forechecker to get a step on them and would lead to possibly a more opened up game).

I then would implement a rule that states there is Automatic icingicing on penalty kills and no line changes on offending team (be it offense or Defense) since it is easier to get it out of the zone and therefore quicker to make line changes.

My thought only.
What does that have to do with the trap?

I like your ideas in regards to using the blueline for icing.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 12:46 PM
  #28
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
What does that have to do with the trap?
Is the goal to ban the trap or create a more entertaining, wide open game?

Scoring chances are most times created by defensive team lapses. To increase those, I would suggest a rule that doesn't allow the team that caused any penalty to change their players during the stoppage in play. Just like the icing rule, just expanded to be any stoppage (off sides, goalie freezes the puck, puck goes out of play, etc.).

This will create longer shifts. That will create more tired players. That will create more mistakes. And that will create more scoring chances.

Since hockey is such a flow game, it will be tough to come up with any rule that will stop a boring defensive system.

The 1-3-1 NZT may get modified by a rule mandating an active forechecker. But, then you'll get teams that play a 1-4 with one active forechecker to avoid the "illegal defense" call and then the 4 lined up at their blue line.

If you really want the ban the NZT, then get all 30 owners agree to not hire any coach that uses the NZT as a primary defensive system.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 12:48 PM
  #29
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
Is the goal to ban the trap or create a more entertaining, wide open game?

Scoring chances are most times created by defensive team lapses. To increase those, I would suggest a rule that doesn't allow the team that caused any penalty to change their players during the stoppage in play. Just like the icing rule, just expanded to be any stoppage (off sides, goalie freezes the puck, puck goes out of play, etc.).

This will create longer shifts. That will create more tired players. That will create more mistakes. And that will create more scoring chances.

Since hockey is such a flow game, it will be tough to come up with any rule that will stop a boring defensive system.

The 1-3-1 NZT may get modified by a rule mandating an active forechecker. But, then you'll get teams that play a 1-4 with one active forechecker to avoid the "illegal defense" call and then the 4 lined up at their blue line.
Thread title should say it all. I was talking about entertaining solutions to this topic.

Changes to the PP/PK have nothing to do with the trap. Don't want the thread derailed off topic.


Quote:
If you really want the ban the NZT, then get all 30 owners agree to not hire any coach that uses the NZT as a primary defensive system
I'm trying to come up with realistic solutions.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 12:49 PM
  #30
gallagt01
Registered User
 
gallagt01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sloan
Posts: 8,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGB24 View Post
Why? I dont understand everyone's frustration with it. Its a strategy perfectly within the rules of hockey. It's a strategy that if implemented correctly has shown its worked effectively. Sure it can be boring, but the team is doing what it can to win hockey games and not breaking any rules, I dont see why the NHL needs to step in and eliminate a strategy because one team felt they didnt want to play against it.
I never said I was against the trap. I'm saying, if you want to outlaw it, that's the only way I feel you can do it. It's a judgment call on part of the officials.

That said, I'd rather watch entertaining hockey. Especially because the sabres can't beat the trap.

gallagt01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:02 PM
  #31
OkimLom
Registered User
 
OkimLom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Thread title should say it all. I was talking about entertaining solutions to this topic.

Changes to the PP/PK have nothing to do with the trap. Don't want the thread derailed off topic.



I'm trying to come up with realistic solutions.
Sorry man, I was just in a typing mode and that happens sometimes. The second part shouldve been saved for a different topic. My bad. But I do think my first thought would eliminate the trap though.

OkimLom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:05 PM
  #32
Kruschiki
Registered User
 
Kruschiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 13,926
vCash: 500
http://nhl-red-light.si.com/2011/11/...sct=nhl_t12_a1

Kruschiki is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:13 PM
  #33
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OkimLom View Post
Sorry man, I was just in a typing mode and that happens sometimes. The second part shouldve been saved for a different topic. My bad. But I do think my first thought would eliminate the trap though.
I like those ideas and they seem fairly simple to impliment.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:14 PM
  #34
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian_griffin View Post
Eliminate the 12th skating forward from the 23-man roster. Replace with Admiral Ackbar.



WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:17 PM
  #35
Clock
Moderator
 
Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 20,113
vCash: 500
I'm almost a fan of the natural solution - do nothing. Let what the Flyers did become a legitimate strategy should teams choose to employ it. The fans will get pissed and start voting with their money.

Something about making certain strategies illegal... don't like it.

I have a feeling that realistically, a rule would be necessary, but I'd like to see if the situation can resolve itself in the short term.

Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:19 PM
  #36
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I'm trying to come up with realistic solutions.
I think that is the most realistic solution to getting rid of coaching systems that stifle offensive creativity.

Every rule change has a counter and coaches have a much easier time coaching defensive systems than offensive ones.

Just look at the new strategy where everyone gets into shooting lanes and everyone blocks shots.

That is a response to the crack down on hooking and holding.

Whatever rule you can come up with, there will be a counter.



The only winning move is not to play.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:21 PM
  #37
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
I think that is the most realistic solution to getting rid of coaching systems that stifle offensive creativity.
Every rule change has a counter and coaches have a much easier time coaching defensive systems than offensive ones.

Just look at the new strategy where everyone gets into shooting lanes and everyone blocks shots.

That is a response to the crack down on hooking and holding.

Whatever rule you can come up with, there will be a counter.



The only winning move is not to play.
The only way you do that is to change the rules.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:24 PM
  #38
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clock View Post
I'm almost a fan of the natural solution - do nothing. Let what the Flyers did become a legitimate strategy should teams choose to employ it. The fans will get pissed and start voting with their money.
If you think the trapping teams' fans care, you're deluded. Trapping teams' fans are acclimated. They know what their team is doing or why, and they accept it or they're already long since off the bandwagon. Playing a stunt like the Phillybuster won't change one mind about the trap. All it'll do is re-kindle the old arguments again.

Quote:
Something about making certain strategies illegal... don't like it.

I have a feeling that realistically, a rule would be necessary, but I'd like to see if the situation can resolve itself in the short term.
I agree, but the Phillybuster is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to develop tactics that break up the formation. Good coaches can do that. Bad coaches are bad coaches and will ultimately be replaced with good ones.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:29 PM
  #39
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
The only way you do that is to change the rules.
Then coaches come up with new ways that fit within the rules.

It will be a constant dance that is unlikely to really open up the game.

Beer league games have loads of chances because mistakes happen more often and teams don't have practices and video sessions to implement systems.

Another option would be rules around banning video coaching and how much time a week coaches can work with players, ala the NC$$.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:32 PM
  #40
Clock
Moderator
 
Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 20,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
If you think the trapping teams' fans care, you're deluded. Trapping teams' fans are acclimated. They know what their team is doing or why, and they accept it or they're already long since off the bandwagon. Playing a stunt like the Phillybuster won't change one mind about the trap. All it'll do is re-kindle the old arguments again.
Easy there.

The point wasn't to say that the trap itself will piss off fans. Obviously, by this point, we know that. What WILL piss off fans is if Philly's strategy is implemented, and yes, it IS a strategy as long as teams are rewarded to making it to overtime having scored 0 goals as well as having the added benefit of not allowing the other team to clog up the neutral zone with five players.

One boring strategy countered with another boring strategy. Both just as valid.

Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:39 PM
  #41
Crazy Tasty
Registered User
 
Crazy Tasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Indiana
Country: United States
Posts: 3,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clock View Post
Easy there.

The point wasn't to say that the trap itself will piss off fans. Obviously, by this point, we know that. What WILL piss off fans is if Philly's strategy is implemented, and yes, it IS a strategy as long as teams are rewarded to making it to overtime having scored 0 goals as well as having the added benefit of not allowing the other team to clog up the neutral zone with five players.

One boring strategy countered with another boring strategy. Both just as valid.
I think both cities should be stripped of their teams and championships. Give them to New England.

Crazy Tasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:46 PM
  #42
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 33,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
Then coaches come up with new ways that fit within the rules.

It will be a constant dance that is unlikely to really open up the game.

Beer league games have loads of chances because mistakes happen more often and teams don't have practices and video sessions to implement systems.

Another option would be rules around banning video coaching and how much time a week coaches can work with players, ala the NC$$.
Do you honestly think I don't realize what coaches do? Or that I don't realize they will adjust to changes?


I'm talking about tweaking the rules to open up the ice a bit, within the context of teams using trapping systems, to reduce the effectiveness of those trapping systems. To remove a team's ability to sit back in the neutral zone with all 5 skaters and not even attempt to forecheck. I'm not really trying to ban the trap since thats not possible. I'm also not trying to turn the league into a back and forth bar league game every night.


Last edited by joshjull: 11-11-2011 at 01:55 PM.
joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 01:59 PM
  #43
dma0034
Registered User
 
dma0034's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,937
vCash: 500
I doubt allowing the breakout team to ice the puck would help anything. Instead of running a 1-3-1 the Last defender would push back and wait for the icing.

The best way to solve it is if the forechecking team doesn't have a player in the offensive zone while the other team controls the puck for more than 5 seconds a faceoff will be held in the defensive zone. Use the icing rule but apply it to the trap.

dma0034 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 02:12 PM
  #44
1point21Gigawatts
hell's a gigawatt?
 
1point21Gigawatts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The future
Country: United States
Posts: 1,212
vCash: 500
I honestly don't believe it's fair to make up a rule to prohibit a teams strategy. I certainly understand the desire to want to make a new rule, but is it fair? Teams should be able to cope and find ways through the trap, which i know is easier said than done, but it is possible. Boston proved that last year in the conference finals and I thought that was still exciting hockey.

Just for the record, I don't think there are any bad suggestions here. There are a lot of great ideas on ways to avoid the trap. I just don't think it's fair.

1point21Gigawatts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 02:14 PM
  #45
puckish66
Registered User
 
puckish66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Remember when like Philly didn't like forecheck that time and like the Sabres stayed back and like made the playoffs?

(Said in Chris Farley's voice.)

Good job Josh. I like your ultimate solution.

An even more ultimate solution would be for the owners to understand that the trap and other defensive schemes/styles cost them money and agree not to hire GMs and coaches who practice it. Am I being naive?

puckish66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 02:42 PM
  #46
sabresandcanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,799
vCash: 500
The simple solution is to dump the puck behind the d and then pound the living hell out of them. Boring I know...but effective

sabresandcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 03:22 PM
  #47
Gnuguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGB24 View Post
Why? I dont understand everyone's frustration with it. Its a strategy perfectly within the rules of hockey. It's a strategy that if implemented correctly has shown its worked effectively. Sure it can be boring, but the team is doing what it can to win hockey games and not breaking any rules, I dont see why the NHL needs to step in and eliminate a strategy because one team felt they didnt want to play against it.
The NHL wants to step in if it keeps people from watching.

Gnuguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 03:40 PM
  #48
Gnuguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 104
vCash: 500
In the history of sports the closest thing to the trap in hockey was ball possession basketball. Once games started getting into the 10-20 point range it threatened to kill the league.

Is hockey in danger of being killed by the trap? I dunno, but I doubt its existence maximizes league revenue. If the NHL is interested in maximizing revenue then it would likely be willing to curtail the trap.

There have been suggestions that roughly fall into three categories:

1). Make teams change their drafting priorities to larger forwards who fight through the trap. See 90's

2). Increase interference calls, the trap does rely on levels of interference that don't frequently get called, but are technically against the rules. See 2005-2007

3). Restrict the ability of the defending team to line up across the neutral zone. Either by:
a). requiring them to use 1 or more members of their team in a substandard manner or
b). Making it a penalty similar to illegal defense in basketball
infrequently
c). Decrease the effectiveness of the trap by making outside shots more dangerous. Either through wider nets, smaller equipment or unlimited curves to sticks.

Solution 1 seems flawed in the long term. Player adept at beating the trap are also good at implementing it. It just creates a trapping arms race.

Solution 2 works only as long the league commits to it and has a tendency to revert.

Solution 3 takes the league into a new direction; bold but for whatever reason every change in hockey is considered a death knell while other leagues change their rules with regularity but without cataclysm.


If forced to pick an existing solution I'd decrease the size of the goalie equipment to bring back the outside shot. A normal part of offense through the first 70 years of the league only in the last 20 years has it be nullified by the massive pads current goalies use.

What I'd like to see is an infraction for forwards skating backwards through the neutral zone. Don't make it a penalty; or refs will be scared to call it. Just make it a delayed face off in the defending zone. The whistle would blow upon the defending team gaining possession.

Gnuguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 04:38 PM
  #49
Play4Miracles*
1 nation under Oil
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 5,241
vCash: 500
Honestly, I'm sick of the, "the first goal is very important" talk...THAT...exactly THAT is why the NHL is very predictable. Every time a team gets a lead their gonads run back up behind their abdominal walls!

They play a trap or some kind of one.

The only way to open things up and still be able to watch well played hockey is to make the rinks bigger.

Play4Miracles* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2011, 04:50 PM
  #50
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
I'd rather debate how the league will return back to the post-lockout, obstruction-penalized style of 2005 - 07, when the games were generally more exciting, with better flow and offensive production....


Sabretip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.